About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
to space to stem-cell research to name a few. can science stay objective out of politics? alex is co-author of science left behind, feel good fallacies in the rise of the anti-scientific left. welcome. >> thank you for having me on. >> sure. you argue here that for all of the talk about republicans being the enemy of science, anti-scientific rhetoric is a by partisan project. tell me how you came to this opinion that democrats are not necessarily the party of science. >> well, on a whole host of issues, so as you know, on the right the conservatives are wrong on evolution and on climate change, and there's this it media narrative that somehow anti-science believes are unique to the right side of the political spectrum. what i found through reading a lot of science is basically that the left side also has some pet ideas not lining up with the scientific mainstream. for instance, opposition to genetic modification. the california democratic party endorsed this proportion to label food in direct opposition to the american medical association. the anti-vaccine movement started on the lef
stage? john gear is in the guest spot today. he chairs the political science department at vanderbilt university. how are you, sir? >> i'm fine. how are you? >> i'm good. i'm a person that believes that campaigns matter, that campaigning and governing are different jobs with different skill sets. can you talk about the impact of how campaigning is like governing and how campaigning is different than governing? >> there's certainly similari similariti similarities. when you're president of the united states, you need to do persuading. there are certain skill sets in common. one of the big differences when you campaign, you can be pretty vague and you can hedge. when you're governing, you have to make choices, and you've got to make decisions that have real policy implications. that's the big difference. >> can you name people who ran bad campaigns and were good presidents, and then people who ran good campaigns. >> i suspect the example of someone running a good campaign but not good as president might be lyndon johnson in '64. he ran a very powerful campaign and won 62%, 63% of the vo
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)